design optimization of pre engineered steel truss … · 2018-10-31 · members were analyzed using...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 304 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 10, October 2018, pp. 304–316, Article ID: IJCIET_09_10_031

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=10

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

©IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF PRE ENGINEERED

STEEL TRUSS BUILDINGS

Muhammad Umair Saleem

Assistant Professor, Ph.D., P.E, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

College of Engineering, King Faisal University, 31982, Hofuf, Alahsa, Saudi Arabia.

Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Current study is devised to achieve the multilevel design based optimization of

pre-engineered industrial steel truss buildings. In order to achieve it, a wide range of

industrial steel buildings is selected for analysis and design of integrated conventional

industrial buildings with truss roofing systems. The study comprised of three main

parts. In the first part, eave height of the truss was design variable whereas the other

geometrical and loading parameters were kept constant. By varying the height of

truss, its effect on the truss structural response and on its weight is determined. By

doing so, the most optimum height of the truss assembly is determined. In the second

part, different types of sections such as hot rolled hollow tubes shapes and hollow

sections were taken as design variables and the truss weight and efficiency is further

optimized. In the third part, a complete industrial frame is modelled with two different

configurations of supporting columns such as truss columns and hot rolled I shape

columns. The better of the two designed frames was considered for the further study

and a computer model of a full scale pre-engineered steel truss building was prepared

to evaluate the real time weight of pre-engineered steel truss building. The structural

properties and building loads were taken from the most recent available building

design codes. Structural response of designed trusses is compared in terms of

deflection, side sway and section capacity checks. The analysis results have shown

that the truss height plays a vital role in the structural efficiency and cost of steel truss

buildings. The hollow steel sections have shown better performance than the solid hot

rolled shapes.

Key words: Truss buildings, pre- engineered, hollow steel sections, optimization,

steel frames, building model.

Cite this Article: Muhammad Umair Saleem, Design Optimization of Pre Engineered

Steel Truss Buildings, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology

(IJCIET) 9(10), 2018, pp. 304–316.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=10

Design Optimization of Pre Engineered Steel Truss Buildings


1. INTRODUCTION

The use of steel building as industrial building is growing fast in all parts of the world. The

use of steel structure is not only economical but also ecofriendly. These buildings are

typically used for workshops, factories, industries and distribution warehouses. Generally,

there are two types of industrial steel building, Conventional Buildings and Pre-Engineered

Buildings as shown in Fig. 1. Each one is to be selected by the requirements which are

needed. Steel buildings in general have many advantages such as the high quality of

construction, lower maintenance cost, non-combustible to fire, environment friendly, steel

components can be used again, faster than any construction method. Steel buildings have also

disadvantages such as the change of steel cost from time to time, subject to corrosion,

susceptibility to buckling, less availability of steel.

Figure 1 Conventional truss and Pre Engineered Buildings.

Conventional steel buildings are low rise steel structures with roofing system of truss and

roof covering. Various types of roof trusses can be used for these structures depending upon

the pitch of the truss. The selection criterion of roof trusses includes the slope of the roof,

fabrication method and transportation methods, aesthetics, climatic conditions, etc. Standard

hot-rolled sections are usually used for the truss elements along with gusset plates and bolted

or welded connections. Conventional buildings are usually composed of hot rolled sections

for the primary frames and for the roof secondary framing. However, in case of pre

engineered steel buildings the primary framing is built-up sections and the secondary framing

is composed of cold formed roof sheeting and purlins. The building walls are also composed

of the cold formed sections. With the recent technological advancements in the field of cold

formed sections, the built-up welded steel truss primary framing and cold formed roof or wall

secondary framing has become a popular combination for most of the recent industrial

constructions. In the past, the optimization of steel truss structures has been a challenging

research task for the worldwide researchers. Truss Optimization can be classified into three

broad categories: (i) topology, (ii) sizing and (iii) configuration. In topology optimization, the

optimum connection and arrangement of the truss members is studied [1, 2]. However, the

cross sectional sizes and nodal positions are kept constant. Whereas in case of configuration

optimization the members topology and cross sections are kept constant and location of joints

is varied to have the optimum design results. The truss optimization problems become more

interesting when the member topology is constant and the cross sectional sizes are the design

variables [3]. As the saving in material cost is directly linked with the cross sectional sizes of

the truss, sizing optimization has been remained most popular among researchers [4]. Some of

the researchers combined the optimization techniques. For instance, the sizing and

configurations problems were studied simultaneously by Gil and Andreu [5]. Taylor and

Rossow have used gradient based methods to address the truss optimization problems [6].



Coded genetic algorithms have been adopted for combined sizing and topology by Gulati and

Deb for truss optimization [7]. Kripakaran [8] proposed the optimial material usage for cost

optimization of steel truss structures. However, Li et al. and Lamberti et al. have developed

intelligent algorithms to address the optimization problems [9, 10]. In the early 1990s, genetic

algorithms were used by many researchers as optimization technique and solved variety of

civil engineering optimization problems [11-13]. In recent past, Cicconi et al. [14] had

developed a platform for automatic optimization of steel structures used for oil and gas field

installations. Karim et al. [15] used reactive taboo search algorithms for N-shaped roof trusses

and considered 27 variables including truss topology, sizing and configuration. Fiore et al.

[16] carried structural optimization of hollow steel sections by using Differential Evolution

Algorithms. Mela et al. [17] compared the fabrication cost and weight savings by considering

volume of weld, paint area and structural weight of the truss sections. There are very few who

have addressed the issue of steel truss optimization based on the real time design procedures

and codes [18]. In the current research work, the authors have come up with the initiative of

design-based optimization of steel truss industrial buildings. The current study is planned to

optimize the construction cost of structural steel trusses by using building design codes and

finite element analysis.

In this study, a typical steel truss is analyzed under most common loads considered for

industrial building. The optimization of roof truss is achieved by performing analysis and

design for different heights of the roof truss. The height of the roof truss is gradually varied

and its performance in terms of deflection and design forces is evaluated. Once, the optimum

truss height is established, the effect of steel cross sections is evaluated by using hollow tube

sections instead of I-sections. In the next part of the study, an industrial frame is idealized

with hollow steel sections as truss members and I-sections for the frame columns. The same

frame is compared in terms of weight, sideway and deflection. At the end, a three dimensional

model of the whole building is prepared to have the estimate of total cost of the construction.

2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Roofing system design of industrial steel building structure depends on the behavior and

arrangement of truss members when subjected to the different loads according to the given

codes. The geometrical modeling has a high impact on the truss weight. The study has been

done by designing 12 different trusses by reducing the truss height from 2.75 m to 0.5 m. The

load analysis was performed using SAP 2000. The primary objective of this study is to

optimize the truss weight by finding the optimum truss height and suitable sections. A

comparative study is also conducted to see the performance of Hollow Steel tube section

[HSS] when used at the place of I sections. Furthermore a truss frame is modelled with

columns consisting of I and HSS sections.

3. METHODOLOGY

For the first phase of optimization, a typical steel truss with a span of 33.0 m and height of

2.75 m is selected for the study. Truss roof slope was kept constant at a value of 1 / 20

throughout the study. The eave height for truss is considered equal to 10.0 m. The truss is

subjected to dead and live loads as given by the local design codes [19]. The wind load was

applied using AISC Minimum Design Loads [19]. After the load applications, the truss

members were analyzed using SAP 2000. The design of the truss sections was performed as

per AISC LRDF -2010 design specifications [20]. The design sections for each of the truss

member was selected after a series of trial to get the unity checks (ratio of required load /

design strength) close to 0.8-0.9 for safe and economical design. Once the truss design is

finally established under given loading and geometrical conditions, the truss height was



gradually reduced from 2.75 m to 0.5 m. The analysis and design was conducted for each

truss height (2.75 m, 1.75 m, 1.5 m, 1.25 m, 0.75 m, 0.5 m). The truss weight and mid span

deflections are monitored for each truss height and the most optimum height of the truss is

selected. In the second part of the study, the I-sections are replaced with HSS tube sections

and compared in term of structural performance and weight. At the end, the HSS steel truss is

converted into industrial steel frames by connecting the truss with I section columns and HSS-

tube columns. Both types of frame columns were compared and the lightest weight sections

for the truss by satisfying all the design requirements are selected.

4. METHODOLOGY

Table 1 describers the geometrical and material properties of the truss model used for the

optimization. The Howe type of roof truss was considered with the total out to out span of

33.0 m. The truss height at the ends was kept equal to 2.75 m. The span and height of the truss

was decided based upon the most common industrial building constructed in Middle East and

Saudi Arabia. The panel length was 1.5 m that also corresponds to the spacing of the purlin at

the roof top. Flange braces were provided at each purlin location. The roof purlins were

connected at each panel point location with pin joints to make sure no torsional effects are

transmitted to the roof truss members as shown in Figure 2. The roof truss is provided at an

equal interval of 6.0 m from center to center. A mild roof pitch of 1 / 20 was provided to the

truss top cord members only. The entire hot rolled members are conforming to A-36 structural

steel specifications with the yield and ultimate failure strength given in Table 1. The truss

roofing system is subjected to dead, live, wind and seismic loads as described in Table 2. The

dead loads are calculated based upon the most common roof sheeting, purlins and flange

braces provided at the top chord members of the roof truss. Collateral load of 60 N/m2 is

considered to take care for the loads of ceiling and air conditioning. The live load values of 1

KN/m2 is used which is very close to the values of 0.96 kN/m

2 as suggested by AISC

Minimum design loads [19]. Wind loads are closed for the wind exposure category of C with

the fully enclosed conditions of the buildings. For the calculations of seismic force, an

earthquake zone of 2B and soil profile type of C is considered as per Uniform Building Code

[21]. Figure 3 shows the application of live load force of 9 kN (spacing of truss × panel length

× 1 kN/m2) at each panel point of the truss. Hinge and roller supports are considered at the left

and right most bottom joints of the truss. After applying the loads, the analysis was performed

and the truss members were designed using AISC LRFD-2010 [20] design specifications.

Figure 2 Truss model geometrical properties.



Table 1 Truss Roofing Material and Geometrical properties

Parameter Value

Type of Truss Howe

Span of Truss, L 33 m

Truss height 2.75 m

Spacing of trusses, center to center, S 6 m

Panel Length, P 1.5 m

Unbraced length 1.5 m

Kx, Ky, Kz 1.0

Number of panels 22 Panel

Roof Pitch, 2.86˚

Unit Weight, ɤ = 77 kN/m3

Ultimate Strength, Fu = 400 MPa

Yield Strength, Fy = 250 MPa

Modulus of Elasticity, E= 200 GPa

Table 2 Load of Truss Roofing System

Load Value

Iron Corrugated Sheets 90 N/m2

Roof Purlins 70 N/m2

Bracing 30 N/m2

Collateral 60 N/m2

Live Load 1.00 kN/m2

Kx, Ky, Kz 1.0

Wind speed 140 Km/hr

Windward wind pressure 0.875 kN/m2

Leeward wind pressure -0.875 kN/m2

Building Exposure Category C

Open Conditions Fully Enclosed

Seismic Zone 2B

R 3.5

Soil Profile Conditions Soil Type –C

Figure 3 Live loads assigned on the truss joints

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first roof truss was modelled by using the geometric and load properties presented in the

Table 1 and 2. After applying the appropriate load combination as per AISC Minimum Load

Design Load [20], the design of the truss was performed. During the design process it was

made sure that the sections are the most optimized and best fit under the given load



combination and required serviceability conditions. The same procedure was repeated for the

truss heights of 1.75 m, 1.5 m, 1.25 m, 1.0 m and 0.5 m. The truss height was gradually

reduced from 2.75 m to 0.5 m to see the effect of truss height on the truss weight and its mid

span deflections. Figure 4 shows the variation in steel weight when the truss height was

gradually reduced from 2.75 to 0.5 m. At 2.75 m truss height the weight of optimized

designed truss was 3150 kg but as the height was reduced from 2.75 m to 1.75 m, the truss

weight also reduced from 3150 kg to 2350 kg. No significant difference in the truss weight

was spotted when the height was further reduced from 1.75 m to 1.5 m and it remained close

to 2350 kg. However, when the truss height was further reduced from 1.5 m to 1.25, a slight

increase in the steel truss weight was observed. The similar kind of effect was observed when

the truss height was reduced from 1.25 m to 1.0 and 0.75m. At 0.75 m, the truss weight has

increased to 3200 kg as compared to 2350 kg. A further decrease in truss height from 0.75 m

to 0.5 m has tremendously increased the weight and it rose from 3200 kg to 4650 kg which is

approximately double the truss weight at the height of 1.5 m. Figure 5 describes the effect of

truss height on the mid span deflections. With the decrease in truss height, the deflection of

the truss has increased. For instance, at 2.75 m height the mid span deflection was 85 mm and

this value increased to 100 mm at 1.75 m. The red line in the figure 5 is the threshold

allowable deflection value given by Metal Building Manufacturing Association (MBMA,

2006) [22]. The mid span deflection, further increase to 115 mm, 149 mm and 180 mm when

the truss height was reduced to 1.5 m , 1.25 m and 1.0 m respectively. However, when the

truss height was further reduced from 1.0 m to 0.75 m and 0.5 m, the mid span deflections

crossed the allowable limit of 275 mm which is not permissible by MBMA. It is quite obvious

that decreasing the truss height has reduced the compound moment of inertia of truss and it

had increased the deflection. Based upon these results, it was decided to select the truss height

of 1.5 m for the further study as it this height the truss weight was minimum and deflection

was also found within the allowable limits.

Figure 4 Height Vs Weight of hot-rolled sections (HRS)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.75

Wei

gh

t (k

g)

Height (m)



Figure 5 Height Vs Deflection of hot-rolled sections (HRS)

Once the topology optimization of the considered Howe truss has been achieved and the

truss roof height was decided, the sizing optimization was achieved by using hollow steel

sections [HSS]. In this part the hot rolled W-sections were replaced with the optimized hot

rolled hollow tube section and the height of the truss is gradually reduced form 1.5 m to 0.5

m. Figure 6 shows the weight of the the HSS truss when the height of truss was reduced from

1.5 m to 1.25 m, 1.0 m, 0.75 m, and 0.5 m. By decreasing the truss height from 1.5 m to 1.25

m, a slight increase in the weight of truss has been observed as it rises from 1850 kg to 1960

kg. However, further decrease in the truss height has reduced the truss weight from 1960 to

1680 kg. The further increase in truss height has an adverse effect on the weight as the truss

weight has increased from 1680 kg to 2900 kg and 4050 kg at the truss height of 0.75 m and

0.5 m respectively. Figure 7 shows the mid span displacement of the truss at different heights.

By decreasing the truss height from 1.5 m to 1.25 m, the mid span deflection has increased

from 145 mm to 165 mm. At the truss height of 1.0 m and 0.75 m the mid span deflections

has increased from 165 mm to 275 mm which is almost equal to allowable deflection of the

truss. However, when the truss height was further reduced to 0.5 m, the mid span deflection

has increased than the allowable value of 275 mm as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6 Height Vs Weight of Hollow Steel Rectangular-Sections

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.75

Def

lect

ion

(m

m)

Height (m)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

Wei

gh

t (k

g)

Height (m)

Allowable



Figure 7 Height Vs Deflection of Hollow Steel Sections

Figure 8 Height Vs Weight of HRS and HSS

Figure 8 shows the comparison of the truss weight when HSS and hot rolled were used at

same truss height. It is quite evident from the Figure 8 that for almost all of truss heights the

HSS sections have shown lighter weight compared to hot rolled tube sections. However, this

difference in weight was minimum for the truss height of 0.75 m and the maximum saving in

terms of frame weight was observed when the truss height was restricted to 1.0 m.

5.1. Industrial Truss Frame Comparisons

Once the height of the truss is optimized for the best most economical type of truss sections,

2-dimenssional industrial frames were modelled. For it, two types of industrial frames were

considered. The rafters of the frames were already optimized truss structures in the previous

parts; however the columns of the frames were varied for these frames. For one of the two

frames, truss rafters were supported by the hot rolled I shape columns (Frame HRS) whereas

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

Def

lect

ion

(m

m)

Height (m)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

Wei

gh

t (k

g)

Height (m)

HRS

HHS

Allowable



for the other frame, the columns were HSS tube section truss (Frame HSS) as given in Figure

9(a) and (b) respectively.

(a) Frame HR

(b) Frame HSS

Figure 9 Comparison of frames with hot rolled columns and HSS truss columns

Table 3 Frame Models Information

Sr# Parameter Details

1 Type of Truss 1m HSS Truss

2 Frame span 33 m

3 Panel length 1.5m

4 Eave height 8.2m

5 Type of supports Pin Supports

6 Live load on internal joints 9 kN

7 Live load on external joints 4.5 kN

8 Dead Load on internal joints 2.5

9 Dead load on external joints 1.125

10 Windward load on internal joints of truss in vertical direction 5.25kN

11 Windward load on external joints of truss in horizontal direction 2.265kN

12 Windward load on internal joints of Columns 5.25kN

13 Windward load on external joints of Columns 2.625

14 Leeward load on internal joints of truss in vertical direction -5.25 kN

15 Leeward load on external joints of truss in horizontal direction -2.265 kN

16 Windward load on internal joints of Columns -5.25 kN

17 Windward load on external joints of Columns -2.625 kN

Both frames were modelled using the same material properties as described in Table 1.

The applied dead, live and wind forces over the both of the frame models are given Table 3.

The analysis of the HSS frame shows the maximum roof deflection of 157.29 mm which is

less than the maximum allowable deflection of 275 mm, and the maximum lateral sway of

24.31 mm which is also less than the maximum allowable lateral sway of 92 mm. After



optimizing the unity checks for economical design, a total weight of 2317.72 kg was achieved

for HSS frame. On the other hand, the HRS frame has given a maximum roof deflection of

227.408 mm and the maximum lateral sway of 41.25 mm under the identical gravity and

lateral loading conditions of HSS frame. The total weight of the HRS frame was found

3874.38 kg which is greater than HSS frame weight. Figure 10 shows the percentage

comparison of frame weight, vertical deflection and horizontal sway comparison of HRS and

HSS frame with respect to the HRS frame values. The results show that using a HSS-columns

frame gives a 40% lighter frame weight than HR frame. By using HSS frames the structural

efficiency of the frames has also been improved as the frame deflection has been reduced by

30 and the lateral sway by 41% as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 W-Columns Frame Vs HSS Columns Frame

5.1. Three Dimensional Steel Truss Building Model

Once the structural adequacy and economy of HSS frames is established, a 3-dimessnional (3-

D) model of an integrated conventional steel building has been prepared. Table 4 gives the

geometrical properties and load values of the building model. Figure 11 and 12 shows the 3-D

model of the industrial steel truss building and its plan and front view. The lightest frames

with optimized truss are used to model the frames of the building. Roof sheeting of the

building is supported by the purlins, which are seated at the panel point of the truss rafters. In

the out of plane direction, a bracing is provided to take care for the forces acting in the

longitudinal direction of the buildings (as shown in Figure 11). After applying the forces to

the 3-D model, the frames was analyzed and designed. During the design process, the HSS

sections were used for the main frames whereas hot rolled angle sections were used for the

purlins. All of the designed sections were optimized to achieve the lightest possible weight of

the building. After the design, the total building weight excluding roof and wall sheeting was

found approximately 36,400 kg. Under the combined effect of forces, the building has shown

a maximum lateral movement of 179.15 mm and a maximum vertical deflection of 43.9 mm.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Weight Deflection Lateral Sway

%

W-Columns Frame

HSS-Columns Frame



Table 4 General Building Information of 3D model

Parameter Details

Length of building 60 m

Width of building 33 m

Bays spacing 6 m

Clearance Height 8.2 m

Total Height 9.2 m

Area of building 1,980

Number of trusses 11 Trusses

Dead Load, 0.250 kN/m2

Live Load 1.0 kN/m2

Windward pressure 0.875 kN/m2

Leeward pressure -0.875 kN/m2

Figure 11 3D View of the Building

Figure 12 Plane and Front View of the Building



6. CONCLUSIONS

In this research study a wide range of truss structures are selected to find out the optimum

design solution for pre-engineered steel truss buildings. Truss height, design sections and

types of frames were the main parameters of study in this research work. Analysis and design

results have clearly shown that there is an optimum truss height for minimum weight of roof

truss that should be determined for economical design of steel truss buildings. It is not

necessary that the higher truss members will result in economical design as it can results in

the form an expensive structure. On the other hand smaller truss heights may result in higher

sections weight and poor structural response. This optimum truss height may change with

change in topology of the truss members. Truss frames with hot rolled W-section have shown

higher weight and lateral deformations. It is recommended to use hot rolled tube sections to

have better structural efficiency and minimum weight of the structures. As tube sections can

give higher moment of inertia for the same cross sectional area of other hot rolled sections.

However, the connections details of tube sections for on-site construction are not as easier as

that of hot rolled W sections. For a frame span of 33.0 m, 40% reduction in steel weight have

been achieved by optimizing the truss height and by the use of hollow steel sections which is

directly proportional to the reduction in cost of the truss structure. However, this percentage

difference in weight is not a fix value and will change with the change in frame span, truss

type and loads acting on the structure. Wind loads have governed the design in most of the

cases so a careful selection and strong knowledge of building codes is very important for safe

and economical design of truss structures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is thankful to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of

Engineering, King Faisal University for providing the required technical support. Moreover,

the author is also pay his gratitude to the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Faisal

University to provide me with the required resources.

REFERENCES

[1] Bendose, M., Kikuchi, N. Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a

homogenization method. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 71, 1988, pp. 197–224.

[2] Jakiela, M., Chapman, C., Duda, J., Adewuya, A., Saitou, K. Continuum structural

topology design with genetic algorithms. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 186 (2), 2000,

pp. 339–356.

[3] Goldberg, D.E., Samtani, M., Engineering optimization via genetic algorithms.

Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Electronic Computations, ASCE, Birmingham,

1986, pp. 471–482.

[4] Rajeev, S., Krishnamoorthy, C.S. Discrete optimization of structures using genetic

algorithms. J. Struct. Eng. 118 (5), 1992, 1233–1250.

[5] Gil, L., Andreu, A. Shape and cross-section optimization of a truss structure. Comput.

Struct. 79, 2001, pp. 681–689.

[6] Taylor, J. Rossow, M. An optimal structural design using optimality criteria. Proceedings

of the 13th Annual Meeting on Advances in Engineering Science, NASA, Hampton, 1976,

pp. 521–530.



[7] Deb, K., Gulati, S. Design of truss-structures for minimum weight using genetic

algorithms. Finite Elements Anal. Design 37, 2001, pp. 447–465.

[8] Kripakaran, P., Gupta, A. J., Baugh, W. A novel optimization approach for minimum cost

design of trusses. Computers & Structures 85, 2007, pp. 1782- 1794.

[9] Li, L., Huang, Z., Liu, F. An improved particle swarm optimizer for truss structure

optimization. Proc. International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security,

1, 2006, pp. 924-928.

[10] Lamberti, L. An efficient simulated annealing algorithm for design optimization of truss

structures. Computers & Structures, 86, 2008, pp. 1936-1953.

[11] Goldberg, D. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-

Wesley, New York, 1989.

[12] Coello,C. A., Christiansen, A. D. Multiobjective optimization of trusses using genetic

algorithms. Computers and Structures, 75(6), 2000, 647-660.

[13] Ashlock, D. Evolutionary computation for modeling and optimization. Springer, New

York, 2006.

[14] Cicconi, P., Germani, M., Bondi, S., Zuliani, A., Cagnacci, E. A design methodology to

support the optimization of steel structures. 26th CIRP Design Conference, Procedia CIRP

50, 2016, pp. 58-64.

[15] Hamza, K., Mahmoud, H., Saitou, K. Design optimization of N-shaped roof trusses using

reac-tive taboo search. Applied Soft Computing, 3, 2003, 221–235.

[16] Fiore1, A., Marano, G. C., Greco, R., Mastromarino, E. Structural Optimization of

Hollow-section Steel Trusses by Differential Evolution Algorithm. International Journal

of Steel Structures 16(2) (2016) 411-423.

[17] Mela, K., Tiainen, T., Heinisuo, M. Economical design of high strength steel trusses using

multi-criteria optimization. Eurosteel 2017, September 13-15, 2017, Copenhagen,

Denmark, 2017, 3613-3621.

[18] Saleem, M. U., Qureshi, H. J. Design Solutions for Sustainable construction of Pre

Engineered Steel Buildings. Sustainability, 10(6), 2018, pp. 1761-1778.

[19] ASCE/SEI 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American

Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2010.

[20] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Specification for Structural Steel

Buildings; ANSI/AISC 360-10. American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL,

USA, 2010.

[21] UBC. Unifrom Building Code; International Conference of Building Officials. Whittier,

CA, USA, 1997.

[22] MBMA. Metal Building Systems Manual; Metal Building Manufacturers Association.

Cleveland, OH, USA, 2006.

design optimization of pre engineered steel truss … · 2018-10-31 · members were analyzed using...

Documents